>-being that ALL people are not alike and that some sort of
>homogeny of people would have to be in play, i don't see
>where this is realistic... i don't even see where it's ever
>happened in the past? it's usually SMALL groups of like
>minded individuals that SPARK change/revolution... not a
>group of people who try to attain some "universal" results.

It may be small groups but I fail to see how these historical groups have shunned an ideal of universal change. A relevant example might be liberation struggles on the continent... obviously led by the few and obviously intended for the benefit of the many. Then you get people like Nkrumah who, committed to Pan-Africanism, desired to see the liberation take place not just for the many of his nation but for the entire continent. And if you read the writings of Julius Nyerere, you'll see how he envisioned change for Tanzania in the context of change for Africa, and change for Africa in the context of the entire world.

>even if this is with respect to ONLY black people, i must
>again warn of the MULTITUDE off ideologies that "we" hold
>and that to think that what one person/group/ideology can or
>WILL work or work better for ALL people is not in accordance
>with history or its reality.

This is an interesting claim - so it's not just (as most people would admit) that it's hard to reach the necessary consensus with the appropriate compromises that would unite all people - it's fundamentally impossible?

>example...trying to ally against chritian oppression on the
>continent with christians who will be hesistant to "go the
>distance" against their own, is futile. likewise... one
>would not ally with someone whose profits and goals are
>aligned with a purely capitalistic lifestyle if socialistic
>goals are you aim. if a person holds close to them the
>things you're trying to destroy or free others from, their
>skin color makes little difference...

The most useful debate takes place on a foundation of basic unity...

We fight against things that oppress us strategically. The fact that we disagree over issues of religion and political economy should not preclude (and in practice has not precluded) black organization. If your personal fight ends in the destruction of Christianity and capitalism, all that means is as we accomplish certain goals irrespective of those issues, you will rejoice but retain a belief that there are still battles to be fought. Obviously, you would not participate in activities which you feel would propagate those things which you are against. But why should this be considered the necessary outcome of alliances with black Christians and blacks who do not oppose capitalism (note: certainly if they are "capitalists" in the most proper sense, they are unlikely to be working with the requisite level of love for the people, as they will place money above the people)?

And of course any opposition to ideological beliefs among us should spring from a (you guessed it) Love 4 The People. That is, you think it hurts us and so you oppose it. If it we're just a case of "I don't personally subscribe", then you should have not any issue with accommodating those who do subscribe.

>READ "Negroes" by Mwalimu Baruti.

Haven't heard of this before, I'll try and keep and eye out for it.